lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Documenting sigaltstack SS_AUTODISRM
From
Date
22.05.2017 23:38, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) пишет:
> Stas,
>
> I have attempted to document the SS_AUTODISARM feature that you added
> in Linux 4.7.
>
> Could you please take a look at the SS_AUTODISARM pieces in the
> sigaltstack() man page below? There is also one FIXME that I would
> like help with.
>
> It seems to me that the API has become rather odd now. It is no longer
> possible to simply check whether code is executing on an alternative
> stack by using
>
> sigaltstack(NULL, &old_ss);
> if (old_ss.ss_flags & SS_ONSTACK)
You mean, if SS_AUTODISARM was previously used, right?
Because I don't think we broke the existing code, or did we?
I can vaguely recall that I was submitting the patches
that were returning SS_ONSTACK even when SS_AUTODISARM
was used, but they were considered too complex.
This is possible to implement, but the agreement was
that it is not a big deal.

> ss.ss_flags
> This field contains either 0, or the following flag:
Is this correct?
AFAIK it can be SS_DISABLE too, and posix seems to allow any
other value for enable, which can be (on linux) SS_ONSTACK,
not only 0.
And SS_AUTODISARM can be ORed with the value.

> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
> │FIXME │
> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
> │Was it intended that one can set up a different │
> │alternative signal stack in this scenario? (In pass‐ │
> │ing, if one does this, the sigaltstack(NULL, │
> │&old_ss) now returns old_ss.ss_flags==SS_AUTODISARM │
> │rather than old_ss.ss_flags==SS_DISABLE. The API │
> │design here seems confusing... │
> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
My memory may be wrong here, but I think setting
up another alt stack was not supposed because the
previous settings would be restored upon sighandler
return. AFAIK I was trying to make up a proposal to
get such attempts explicitly blocked rather than
silently ignored, but again the simplicity was chosen.

> SS_AUTODISARM
> The alternate signal stack has been marked to be
> autodisarmed as described above.
Initially this flag was supposed to be ORed with
the old values. Your descrition is correct, but if
more bit flags are added, this may became a
problem, as you are always treating it as a separate
value, not a bit flag.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-05-23 01:37    [W:0.153 / U:1.792 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site